Comments on: Order List for August 29, 2008 [corrected] http://www.scotxblog.com/orders/order-list-for-august-29-2008/ Legal Issues Before the Texas Supreme Court Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:20:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Don Cruse http://www.scotxblog.com/orders/order-list-for-august-29-2008/comment-page-1/#comment-515 Don Cruse Sat, 30 Aug 2008 04:43:00 +0000 http://www.scotxblog.com/?p=312#comment-515 <p>Thanks for the comment, Todd. I actually <em>had</em> counted those three separately, so I had to go back and see what was up. I've cleaned up the post above to explain how I came up with my count.</p> <p>Osler's count is fine with me, too. I'm just wondering if these sorts of statistics are meaningful at all.</p> <p>It's fun to see how many opinions the Court can roll out at a time, but I start to wonder if it hurts quality control on some cases that are rushed out. (In last year's August 31st list, for example, there were at least two causes in which rehearing was later granted. Given how rare rehearing grants are, that's pretty significant.)</p> Thanks for the comment, Todd. I actually had counted those three separately, so I had to go back and see what was up. I’ve cleaned up the post above to explain how I came up with my count.

Osler’s count is fine with me, too. I’m just wondering if these sorts of statistics are meaningful at all.

It’s fun to see how many opinions the Court can roll out at a time, but I start to wonder if it hurts quality control on some cases that are rushed out. (In last year’s August 31st list, for example, there were at least two causes in which rehearing was later granted. Given how rare rehearing grants are, that’s pretty significant.)

]]> By: D. Todd Smith http://www.scotxblog.com/orders/order-list-for-august-29-2008/comment-page-1/#comment-513 D. Todd Smith Fri, 29 Aug 2008 23:33:26 +0000 http://www.scotxblog.com/?p=312#comment-513 <p>My head hurts just from looking at the orders. Isn't Osler's number correct if you count Zurich (06-1030), Federal (06-1040), and Trinity 07-1040) as three dispositions?</p> My head hurts just from looking at the orders. Isn’t Osler’s number correct if you count Zurich (06-1030), Federal (06-1040), and Trinity 07-1040) as three dispositions?

]]>